## OGR data source with driver: ESRI Shapefile 
## Source: "C:\Users\JonnyJew\Documents\FuelsMonitoring\data\MoabBLMTx_WGS84.shp", layer: "MoabBLMTx_WGS84"
## with 168 features
## It has 11 fields

## OGR data source with driver: ESRI Shapefile 
## Source: "C:\Users\JonnyJew\Documents\FuelsMonitoring\data\Utah_County_Boundaries.shp", layer: "Utah_County_Boundaries"
## with 29 features
## It has 14 fields
## Integer64 fields read as strings:  ENTITYNBR

## OGR data source with driver: ESRI Shapefile 
## Source: "C:\Users\JonnyJew\Documents\FuelsMonitoring\data\MIFC_VTRT.shp", layer: "MIFC_VTRT"
## with 528 features
## It has 23 fields
## Integer64 fields read as strings:  OBJECTID

## CRS arguments: +proj=longlat +ellps=GRS80 +no_defs

Introduction

The data for this analysis has been collected by the Fuels Program of the Canyon Country Fire Zone based out of Moab, UT. The fuels program has executed a number of different projects on BLM lands to reduce the hazardous fuels loads across the district. As part of those treatments, monitoring of the treatments sites has been performed. There have been a number of different vegetation monitoring protocols that have been implemented over the last decade. However, particularly in the last 5 years, those protocols and measurement methods have become increasingly standardized into what is now referred to as the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Protocol (AIM). AIM consists of several different measurement methods, not a single technique. The full suite of protocols may be explored more in depth here: https://www.landscapetoolbox.org/. Over the course of the data collection, several different people have executed the measurements, potentially introducing bias. Throughout the collections stringent Quality assurance and Quality control measures were implemented to minimize error between data collectors, including calibrating all readers on the same plot to ensure that error in readings was within an acceptable tolerance. Furthermore, the methodologies have evolved in subtle ways. In particular, early implementation for Line-Point-Intercept (LPI) suggested that 50 samples should be taken along a transect. Most of the measurements in this dataset were taken at 2 foot intervals along a 100 ft transect. However, more recent specifications on methodologies require that measurements are taken every 1 meter along 50m transect. The conversion from English to Metric units introduces some more error in that the vegetation indices are not truly comparing equal areas. However, it is possible to treat the measurements in normalized units such as percent presence. While there may be some issues with this simplification, the ability to include a larger sample size ultimately increases the robustness of any analysis.

Agregate Analysis

Bare Soil

A very coarse look at bare soil shows that nearly all plots showed less bare soil in the most recent observation compared to the spread of bare soil across all observations.

Cheatgrass

Project Specific Results

Columbia

Columbia Handpile

Columbia Bullhog

Little Baullie

Tamarisk

## [[1]]

## 
## [[2]]

## 
## [[3]]

Black Ridge

Black Ridge Sagebrush

### Black Ridge Pj/Bullhog

West Coal Creek

Horse Canyon

Bitter Creek

Devil Canyon

Shay Mesa

Shay Mesa Bullhog

## [1] "Shay Mesa (Bullhog)" "Shay Mesa Hand Pile"

Shay Mesa Hand Pile

Pack Creek

Peters Canyon

Natural Bridges

Natural Bridges Handpile

Natural Bridges Bullhog

Dugout Creek

Cedar Mountain

Ford Ridge

Blanding East

Earlier treatments than 2018 Lop and Scatter Clearly occured. We will need to correct the VTRT database to include the date and type of treatment.

MIFC Monitoring Report